The Morris Marina was the first new car from the newly merged British Leyland (BLMC) and illustrates clearly why the volume car business of the preceding BMC had failed, and why government ownership, or indeed any other type of ownership, is no panacea to an organisation’s ills when not backed up by a financial commitment comparable to industry standards.

The Marina was the first car conceived by BLMC after the takeover of BMC in 1968. Launched in 1971, three years after the takeover, you might be tempted to infer that the BMC development cupboard was essentially empty and in thinking so, you’d be correct. BMC was broke and overstretched as an organization. Its last product gasp was the Austin Maxi, which BLMC had to facelift twice before it was considered acceptable for production.

BMC, and then BLMC, were weakest in the centre of the market, where the strongest competition came from Ford, whose Escort, Cortina and Capri were showing how it should be done. To be fair to BMC, this had been recognized, and the company had ambitions (plans is too strong a word) to rectify the situation. A key element of this ambition was to hire Ford UK’s chief product planner, Roy Haynes, to lead new product definition. BMC had realized that, for all his strengths as a conceptual engineer, Sir Alec Issigonis was no product planner.

The obvious plan was to offer a new product in this sector of the market, to compete with the Escort and Cortina, and also the Vauxhall Viva and the Hillman Hunter. It would have to come to market quickly, as BLMC’s current offerings were the unloved Austin Maxi, the by-then too small (and criminally underdeveloped) Austin-Morris 1100/1300, the last versions of the Morris Minor/Morris Oxford, and the Farina saloon. Above these cars was the Austin-Morris 1800 (or Landcrab) and below them, the Mini. A range full of gaps and inconsistent execution, to say the least.

BL’s response to this analysis was project ADO28, better known as the Morris Marina, aimed nominally at the Cortina Mk2, and initially conceived to match the Fiat 124–indeed, in many dimensions it matches the Cortina and Fiat closely, but that implies a huge caveat, which we’ll address shortly.

The resulting Marina was a rear-drive saloon, with a two-door option and a sturdy, practical five-door estate. Interestingly, some directors of former BMC divisions wrote to BLMC Chairman Donald Stokes, pointing out that the Marina would be taking on the Americans (Ford and GM) and asking if that a wise move for the Corporation, especially with the rear-driver being conceptually different to established BMC practice. Conceptually, it was very similar to the cars it was planned to compete with, but was riddled with compromises, either for schedule or cost reasons.

The car was hampered by the available engines–the Escort went from 1.1 to 1.3 litres and the Cortina went from 1.2 to 1.6 litres. BLMC could in theory have offered the 1.1 and 1.3 litre A series from the BMC 1100/1300, Minor and Mini; and the B series, in either 1.5 or 1.6 litre sizes. But then the idea came of offering the 1.8 litre B series, both for commonality with the Landcrab and MGB, and for a competitive advantage over the Cortina while matching the Hillman Hunter. Sounds good, but it created a wide gap for the Cortina to exploit at the Marina’s expense.

Consideration was given to using the 1.5 litre E series from the Maxi, but this was discounted for a variety of reasons, including the disappointing performance of the engine itself, and the need to engineer the engine (and the necessary five speed gearbox) for longitudinal installation. So engines were taken, unchanged, from the MG Midget and ADO16 1300; from the Landcrab 1.8; and the more powerful 1.8TC (Twin Carburettor), from the MG B. Slowly but surely, the car moved from an Escort competitor with extra performance to a Cortina competitor.

Then there was the suspension. The Marina front suspension was a torsion bar system derived from the 1948 Minor, which had been designed by Issigonis. Where there were no common components (contrary to legend), it soon became apparent that what was suitable for that light, low powered car could not handle the larger and more powerful Marina, with its heavy B series engine. The rear axle used semi-elliptic leaf springs, just like a pre-war Morris; making the Marina the last European car to use this simple form of suspension. This was not a car that ever did corners well.

The gearbox came from the Triumph Vitesse (the larger engine version of the Triumph Herald), chosen partly because the Minor gearbox did not have synchromesh on first gear (something Issigonis considered unnecessary), but the refurbishment and extension of the Longbridge gearbox facility to manufacture the Triumph gearbox in sufficient volume cost a lot more than an adaptation of the Minor gearbox.

BLMC had not lost all the old BMC habits–predicted sales volumes were 5500 per week at one point and the Marina actually got off to a pretty good start in the market before fading away. Standards had steadily risen, and the Vauxhall Viva HC was larger than its predecessor and sharply styled; Rootes, now fully owned by Chrysler, brought out the Hillman Avenger (or Plymouth Cricket), probably the closest in concept to the to the Marina; and Ford offered the new Mk3 Cortina. All three had by now moved to coil rear suspensions, with the associated benefits to ride and handling.

Still, the Marina did its job and was at first Britain’s second best seller in 1973. It got BLMC a presence in a segment where they had not been properly active for too long; this market was then one of the largest parts of the whole UK market, and where money could be expected to be made. It is only fair to record that in 1973, BLMC built over 200,000 Marinas and almost 800,000 by 1978.

The Cortina Mk 3 was not a particarly good car, but it was a very well marketed. It was larger than its Mk 2 predecessor and therefore, larger than the Marina, with the added option of a 2-litre engine. Ford seemingly better understood the aspirations of the person buying (or more likely, being given by his employer) a Cortina. It was more stylish, more smartly trimmed, with more combinations of trim levels and engines, and was slightly better to drive. So, the car Haynes had planned to compete with the Cortina was, by the time it launched in spring 1971, spot on to compete with the previous Cortina. Did Haynes (and BLMC) not see this coming?

Perhaps the worst aspects of the car can be attributed to the suspension. Remarkably, both major British weekly motoring magazines, Autocar and Motor (later absorbed into Autocar and discontinued) declared the car to have inadequate handling, with truly dangerous amounts of understeer. Both magazines took their concerns direct to BLMC’s engineering director Harry Webster ahead of publication, and revisions, in the form of anti-roll bars were made very soon after. Some accounts suggest BLMC already had these modifications planned but had not completed them in time for the initial production.

The result of this collection of available components was a car with inadequate suspension front and rear; an old engine which was by then comparatively unrefined and not that economical; had an awkward to use twenty year old gearbox; and had an interior that was cheap (and looked it: that is not British burr walnut but plastic wood). It was almost the case that, rather than being the first car of the 1970s, it was the last car of the 1950s, with a 1970s re-style.

The Marina was competing with a car, the Cortina Mk3, which was equipped with everything the Marina needed, and which matched the needs of the market so much better. It was a slightly larger than the Escort, but smaller than the Cortina Mark 3, with inconsistent engine sizes. It also faced off against the 1973 Austin Allegro. While the Marina was nominally larger and upmarket, and the cars shared the 1.3 litre engine, the contrast in technical make-up could not have been stronger. BLMC had originally intended the Marina to be the first of a range of conservatively engineered, highly-styled Morris cars to complement the technically advanced Austin range (characterized by front-drive and Hydragas suspensions). But when the money ran out in 1974, nothing was available to flesh out the Morris range.

Like the BMC 11100/1300 before it, the Marina had an interesting international career. It was sold in the USA and Canada as the Austin Marina and assembled in South Africa and Australia, where it was fitted with the E-series engine in both 1750cc fourcylinder and 2600 cc six-cylinder forms, where the understeer must have been truly frightening.

The featured car is a 1973 1.8TC Coupe–pretty much at the top of the Marina tree, and powered by the 1.8 litre twin-carburettor B series engine, direct from the MGB, with virtually the same exhaust note. The green saloon in the second and third pictures from the top is a 1972 1.3 deluxe, a much more basic expression of the Marina range.

One key point to note about the Marina was that it demonstrated a habit that BMC had had and which would stay with BLMC/Austin-Rover/MG-Rover to the very end–having products that were half way between the size steps being sold by the opposition. The Marina was bigger than the Escort but smaller than the new Cortina; the Princess was bigger than the Cortina but smaller than a Granada; the 1983 Austin Maestro was bigger than the Escort and Astra but smaller than the Sierra and Cavalier, the 1996 Rover 400 was smaller than a Mondeo but larger than an Escort or Astra.

Such situations either mean that the product is smaller than the competitor’s similarly-priced offering (hampering sales), or that larger models sold for the same money as smaller rivals (cutting into profits). The Marina fell into this trap – was the 1.8 Marina intended to compete with the 1.6 Cortina, and be a bit quicker, or with the 2 litre Cortina, but be a bit more compact?

The Marina has to have another note added to it – if ever there was a car that was intended to make people look to another marque for their next purchase, purely through the lack of class standard achievement in basic tasks (such as ride and handling, refinement and basic ease of use and durability), it was probably the Marina. It genesis within a low budget, rushed design process showed. The 1970s were the decade of the Marina, and the decade of the growth of Japanese imports, predominantly of straight forward cars that were easy to drive, undemanding to own and Swiss-watch reliable. The Marina was none of those; but was instead the best advertisement for a Datsun Bluebird or Toyota Corona.

There was a new interior in 1978, which angled the radio and heater controls towards the passenger for some reason, and the Marina was left to battle on right through the 1970s, but it was obvious it could not have a sustainable future as cars like the Cortina Mk4, Vauxhall Cavalier, Renault 18, Chrysler Alpine, VW Passat and the Japanese products started to emerge from the mid 1970s on.

In 1978, the Marina got BL’s new O series engine in 1.7 litre form to replace the B series, but little else until Harris Mann, father of the Allegro, Princess and TR7, completed a neat facelift in 1980, which revised the front with some fashionable big headlamps and shaped a new rear, incorporating a higher boot-line and large wrap tail lights, though the 1978 interior was retained. BL marketed this facelifted car as the Morris Ital, named after the Italian design house, Ital Design. This one is an Ital 1700HLS–as good as it got in 1971.

Despite many hints, rumours and suggestions (not least from BL itself) that Ital Design was responsible for the revised styling of the new car, it was somewhat less involved in the process – simply handling its production engineering. It is worth pausing to consider why BLMC asked Ital Design to handle production engineering – were BL’s engineering teams really that fully committed on the Austin Metro and Maestro, or did BL just not have enough of an engineering capability to handle what was really a modest task?

This facelift (and it was no more than a facelift) went no further than these few, albeit distinctive, cosmetic changes. Apart from the first roll-out of the new A-Plus 1.3 litre engine, which was really planned for the 1980 Austin Metro, there were no major engineering changes. This revised engine may have given the Ital 12,000-mile service intervals (unusual at the time, but a large oil filter and the likelihood of some leakage would enable that), but the facelift certainly did not lift the car’s chassis from a level of sub-mediocrity–the car’s humble origins were blatantly obvious. (Tastefully, the Financial Times described it as ‘combing the hair of the corpse‘.)

By the time of the Ital’s launch in June 1980, there were few secrets about the existence and timing of the forthcoming Austin Maestro and Montego and the Ital was viewed as something of an embarrassment for the company; something to remain clinging to life until the new wave of cars hit the market in 1983 and 1984. The Ital was in reality no more than part of a life support system for the volume car business of BL, from 1980 to 1983. It was aimed fair and square at the fleet market, which was still conservatively cautious about front wheel drive.

The feature car is a 1981 Ital 1300, cared for by the son of the original owner. It is a great example of the car and there’s absolutely nothing wrong about looking after your dad’s old car, but however much care is put into it now, the Ital was never a good car and shouldn’t be seen as one retrospectively; regardless of how much you want to drop a piano on Jeremy Clarkson.

Austin-Morris, amazingly, but then they had to, soldiered on with the car until 1983, when it was finally replaced, with the Allegro, Maxi and Princess by the Austin Maestro and Montego family. Unlike its predecessor, the Morris Minor, there were no memorial services for the Marina, and with it, the Morris brand. Ironically, the last of Itals were assembled at Longbridge, after Cowley was dedicated to Maestro and Montego production in 1983, so the last Morris was produced by “the Austin.”

Carlos Ghosn, now head of Renault-Nissan, has been quoted as saying “There is no issue in the motor industry that cannot be resolved by investment in product.” The Marina proves that, and sadly it was a lesson not learned or understood by most of by BLMC/Rover’s subsequent owners, including the UK Government, and excluding BMW. And that is why, although the motor industry in Britain is strong and growing, it is the motor industry in Britain and not the British motor industry.

49 Comments

Thanks for another great read and photos Roger.I admit to prejudice about the Marina,a very unpopular Domestic Science teacher had a pea soup green one and my ex BIL(a wife beating,womanising,God bothering hypocrite) was daft enough to have a Marina and an Ital.The Marina had severe rusting at only 3 years old and was scrapped at 5,the Ital lasted about the same time but the engine was by now using almost as much oil as petrol.I assosciate Marinas with these 2 people and the sad lad who had a Starsky and Hutch Marina down my street.
The Marina looked very drab compared to the opposition especially in dreary BL colours(hearing aid beige,pea soup green and dog turd brown).It was a car you hoped your parents wouldn’t buy.
Despite Bryce’s warnings I have an unhealthy interest in the Aussie 6 cylinder Marinal.The coupe didn’t look bad but was very sad compared to a Capri or Rapier despite being a decent performer.

That looks like it was designed not to fit, as a joke (it *is* a photoshop). If the horizontal ran higher, along the character line above the doorhandles and below the windowsill, and came to its forward “point” above and in parallel with the point where the body crease originates, it would look good.

When these were new my fathers outfit couldnt get enough Vauxhall Vivas, The Marina was never much of a car even the TC didnt really live up to the propaganda top speed was 95mph in a properly broken in example belonging to a school friends grandfather but it didnt drive as well as the MK1 Escort or the Hillman Avenger, the best use for Marinas is mechanical upgrades for Morris Minors true there are no common parts but it all retro fits. Gem may want a Marina 262 shes welcome to it, theres a ute with 6 cylinder certification for sale right now on trademe, happy bidding.

Wow, this car really is a number of Deadly Sins rolled into one car. The main obstacle, as you mention, is the sheer shortfall in development capital needed to make a competitive product, especially with so many brands to manage in a much smaller market.

But you have Chrysler’s poor timing, and in the Marina’s case, Ford ’70s conservatism and GM’s overextension. It’s a real shame, some of BLMC’s cars were very good in theory.

During the Marinas development phase BLMC also had its Australian division developing its own cars that were no good either at enormous cost the Kimberly Tasman twins and the P76 cost millions and generated only losses so the Marina project was starved of funds by other white elephants.
Good in theory Perry maybe but in the metal and from behind the wheel mostly disappointing and the maintenance nightmare of BMC FWD did nothing for the rep of the entire company.

You’re right Perry, there were plenty of good BLMC cars in theory! – Rover SD1, 18/22/Princess, XJ-S, Stag, Dolomite Sprint off the top of my head – all cars that, properly developed, built and updated, could have been worldbeaters.
Metro was OK when launched but then, in classic BL fashion, was left to slowly wither and die. Much later, R8 was excellent, but it was a Honda, so doesn’t count. The only one they really got right was the original Range-Rover, but I suspect that they just left Solihull to get on with that unlikely niche model…

Ford’s engineering during this period was mostly extremely conservative — the amount of internal resistance to things like front-wheel drive, even for what became the Fiesta, was amazing — but their product planning acumen was vastly better than most of Ford’s rivals’. I haven’t looked at comparative figures, but I’m guessing much of the market share BL lost in the cheaper classes went to Ford.

What Roger says here about the Marina suggests a bigger issue than just BL’s undercapitalization and lack of investment in product: that their products were designed first and foremost for production expedience (and not even terribly efficient production, given the age of many of BL’s plants) with the potential market a secondary or tertiary consideration.

I think that was to some extent a holdover from Issigonis, who hated marketing people and stylists and felt it was up to engineers to dictate what the public needed. Although Issigonis was sidelined and BL recognized that that attitude was hurting them, the ratio of organization inertia to development money was much too great to change quickly. So, you got the same kind of placeholder cars we’ve seen in the States from the Big Three when they reluctantly moved into markets they didn’t really like bothering with, where the product seems to have been designed because someone said they had to have a car in this class rather than with an eye toward who might buy it or why.

Ford did the opposite: They looked closely at the potential market, calculated the cheapest basic product they would need to be competitive, and then added dressed-up versions to get people to spend a little more and boost the margins. BL had a very hard time doing that; even when they tried to make something basic, their basic costs were too high and they constantly had to make too many compromises.

If that’s the best the British car industry can do, then they deserve their fate. Sloppy workmanship, poor design, skimping on quality just to save money, is simply unforgivable. When you’re building a car or truck, you’re not just building a rolling piece of artwork just to look at, you’re building something functional that people will use to take their families on holiday. It might be used as a taxi cab to transport a client to his/her destination. And if the car falls apart on you the first few days of ownership, the brakes don’t work, the doors and windows don’t open and close properly, then that’s unforgivable. Sadly, it’s not just the British motor industry that was having such problems with quality problems, it’s also the American car makers.

Awful, appalling, dreadful, rubbish, horrid. These words do not adequately descibe my hatrid toward this car. I would rather walk in the rain than get a lift in one, let alone drive it.

I understand, to a certain extent, the point of the Allegro. That had the makings of a decent car, especially the early design drawings, BL saw it as a British Citroen, and it could well have been. It was let down by cost savings and poor product planning.

The Marina on the other hand, was mediocre, what todays ‘yoof’ would describe as ‘meh’. The only redeeming feature of the above TC version, is the fantastic, groovy purple colour. Though the colour works best on a mk2 Cortina 1600E.

Ford Europe’s Marina moment came in 1990, when it launched the mk5 Escort.

From what I heard the Allegro was originally designed to have a lower hood line and to be more sleek overall, but the design was spoiled by a too-tall old engine being dictated. Of course even it it had been better-looking (and it really wasn’t bad as produced) it still probably would have earned the “All aggro” nickname.

From the perspective of an American who wasn’t alive during this car’s production, the Marina isn’t that bad-looking, and I rather like it in coupe form. However, it sounds like the driving dynamics were pretty dreadful. The Ital, on the other hand, looks like a bad Volvo 240 rip-off. Late 70’s nose and tail on a late 60s center section. (Kind of like some of the later variants of the GAZ-24 Volga, which were using a late 60’s center section with early 2000’s nose and tail…)

Thanks for this Roger. Reading the history of the Marina (of which I was only passingly aware), I better understand now why BL buyers were pleased with the Honda-based Triumph Acclaim — the Ballade/Acclaim wasn’t terribly impressive on paper, but I imagine it was a breath of fresh air…

Understand, I love British cars. Completely, irrationally love British cars; will normally take something British over its Japanese, German, Italian counterpart just because . . . its British.

The only reason I have any desire to ever buy one of these is as a dirty joke on my brother-in-law.

Don (at the time my sister’s boyfriend) owned one of these from new. It was painfully obvious from its purchase that he was probably the only person to be in the Paczolt family without the slightest touch of the motorhead gene. To say the car was unreliable is like saying the Titanic needed an ice refill for the first class dining area. To its credit, it was unreliable in all sorts of unique ways. Like the gear shift coming out of the floor in between a 3rd and 4th gear shift in the middle of rush hour traffic. Or the mounts for the front passenger seat breaking off thus insuring my sister would be chauffered around sitting in the back seat until parts could be obtained to repair it. A process that took about two months.

The final kick was the time Don came home to visit Beth, and offered to take her back to Erie (where she was attending college). My father, overprotective as all get-out, insisted on driving the car first. Five minutes later he’s back, stating bluntly that there is no way his little girl is doing a 200 mile interstate trip in that piece of crap – at which time the Marina was two years old. Oh yeah, dad was driving a ’77 Vega at the time, as a local runabout.

I seem to remember the car being replaced by a low end (new) Chevy Celebrity – one huge step up.

Yes, I still want to find a decent, clean, running(!?!?!?!) version to sneak into Beth and Don’s driveway some night with a bow on the roof and birthday wishes for Don to “re-enjoy his youth”.

Thanks, Roger. I found myself rooting for the darn thing if only because it’s kind of cute, at least in sedan form.

“…if ever there was a car that was intended to make people look to another marque for their next purchase…”

Well put. Many fans (me included, I admit) defend this or that dull Big Three-mobile, purely because it didn’t tend to break down or explode. But a good enough car can still be a “deadly sin” if no one wants another one.

Minor point on the revised interior – it first appeared in the Marina 2 in 1975, though the steering wheel shown is later. The minor controls angled away from the driver are a classic blunder by BL. Had they angled them the other way the whole set-up would have looked rather advanced for the mid-70s.

I do fervently wonder what they were thinking. Unless they were trying to minimize driver distraction?

It’s like the polar opposite of the 70’s American cars that put the radio to the driver’s left, at the far left edge fo the dash. (Though that does have its merits–my wife couldn’t keep changing the radio station every two minutes like she tends to do)

The minor controls angled away from the driver are a classic blunder by BL.

Maybe they figured the car would be a runaway hit in the US and Europe? Maybe the designer’s wife was constantly nagging him to change the radio station, or insisting it was too hot/too cold and demanding the heater setting be changed?

I remember the Motor Trend test of this thing, and MT was getting BL advertising money for it at the time, when the tester absolutly hated the thing. He noted that, besides the poor drivetrain, suspension, build quality and ergonomics, the weight of the radio made the dash visibly flex when the car went over a bump.

Cold porridge (aka oatmeal) as a car, never seen outside a car show now. Well written Roger, from the outside it is incredible how badly things were done and reality not faced, eg over-diversification. I suppose that before it was a thing product planning was done by senior management, that nobody was able to effectively direct Issigonis is telling.

Gem the Marina 6 was amazingly poorly reviewed, I’m not sure they managed to get them to do braking tests front-end first!

Roger is that a white Marina convertible next door? Never knew they existed.

An acquaintance of mine recalled an an early 80s incident working at a Sears auto center. Something about setting the rubber (WTF!) fuel line on fire with the torch while installing a muffler on one of these.

I remember looking for cars in the late 80s and early 90s, when you could always pick up a rusty running Marina, invariably in baby-shit brown, for a couple of hundred quid. And no takers.

I love that advert for the 944 quid 1.3 coupe. You can just imagine the advertising copywriters asking the marketing people for a list of standard equipment, and then scratching their heads when they saw it. “So, we’re going to say it has door handles, windscreen washers, erm, a heater fan maybe. Anything else? Not really…”. Surprised they didn’t say that it has seats and a steering wheel.

A British miser’s special made most others seem like a Cadillac.As a kid in 60s Britain I can remember car coats,an overcoat to be worn inside your car!Heaters were an option on many cars til the early 60s,amazing in a country were you need an overcoat,scarf and gloves half the year.
My parents would usually buy plain vanilla strippers(often in green or brown to get a bit knocked off for unpopular colours) though Mum splashed out on a purple 1300 E Escort once

In 1975 my boss scared the hell out of me by buying me a Marina ( I was hoping for a Hillman Avenger). The best things about this car were the gearbox and the ancient 1275cc engine. Note that the doors on the 2-door model were the same as the 4-door , they weren’t stretched.
Over the course of 50k I fitted an aftermarket front a/roll bar ( there was none as standard) , got the clutch changed under warranty ( as the inclined engine tended to leak oil onto it ) , took shims from the front balljoints to compensate for wear, had the brake hoses changed under a re-call ( took a year to get that done ) , had to change a broken rear spring, and finally had to get the differential replaced. Also the standard front drum brakes might pull to the left OR to the right on a cold morning. Even the S U carburettor, normally something rock-solid dependable, gave trouble on the Marina.
BLMC thoroughly deserved to die.

Yeah the short front doors were quite noticeable a friends wife bought a Marina coupe for a runabout 1300 auto Aussie spec it was rust free ran ok and she got 5 trouble free years out of it hard to believe I know but it simply gave no problems, I drove it a few times it was gutless and handled like a dray but it went and was cheap on gas.

I bought an Ital estate in 1990 as transport after my Renault 15 committed mechanical suicide. Not an especially old car at least by my family’s standards – it was an 81(X) and my dad was still tooling around in an 80(V) Cortina. Suffice it to say that after three months I abandoned it in a car park, and would have set it on fire except I would probably have taken out the centre of Sutton-in-Ashfield (though that might not have been a bad thing the state it was in then). I bought a 1980 Granada and lived happily ever after.

I had one in the late 70’s or I really shared it with my Mother as our family’s second car. I was 16 or 17 and went nuts trying to do a burn out as all my friends did in their mom’s car. It had a BW 3 speed auto. I lived in Winnipeg and this car had a battery blanket, block heater and interior car warmer that was plugged in all the time. The grill had a removable factory tailored vinyl cover to keep the wind chill down AND a DC powered band heater around the single pot SU carb. It started with such a clammer, it would wake the neighbors. The GY radials were so bad in winter (not snow tires), I remember leaving it in drive, idling, stepping out and watching the rear tire rotating on the snow and not going anywhere. Parking brakes in the front! what a novel idea! Who said BL didn’t have forward thinking!

I too must admit having an irrational attraction to British cars. The cars I covert are more like the grey 3 litre in the background of the third photo. To my mind the Marina and its ilk are completely without merit and best forgotten. No, don’t forget, let’s learn from them in the hope of not repeating the mistakes and throwing away whole industries. I still don’t have a clear explanation of how this came to pass.

Jim, I couldn’t agree with you more. I must confess though, I do have one of those ‘hairy chested sports cars’ under my care. The TR6. Although, it is only due to my love of ‘wrenching’ (even though it’s not much). All of this because I have Honda’s in the family and never get to play in the garage if I didn’t have the LBC.

Another car from my past,my dreadful social climbing snob of a headmaster drove a Vanden Plas 3 litre.Probably why I never worked up much enthusiasm for them despite being a fan and previous owner of big 6 cylinder Fords and Vauxhalls.
There was a CC write up on the Vanden Plas 3 litre recently

Oh, the dear old Austin Marina. My late father loved Morris cars, having had an MGA and MGB–the latter, he literally kept until he was too old to drive anymore, he loved it so, and no, it never stopped running. Probably still hasn’t. Anyway, in the 70s the parents were persuaded to buy a “proper” family car, so they brought home a Marina. It was just like the one pictured here except it was the four door model, and oh, that amazing 1970s purple! with red interiors, yet! Hate it all you want, but I miss that goofy little car. It was fun to drive; we didn’t need anything more than that. Sadly, we only had it a few years. As it sat innocently at the curb on a warm summer’s day long ago, a drunken pimp in a giant Cadillac crushed it like a tin can. Accordioned it, you might say. I still remember the awful sound. It was actually very sad; my mother cried her heart out. She loved her purple Marina.

Eventually she and Daddy bought a lugubrious light blue Saab to replace it. A much better car, I suppose, but oh, so boring. So, so boring. Not purple at all.